>but don't pretend like they don't have tremendous benefits too.
Javascript+html+css is not a global optimum in the solution space of "making cross platform GUI apps", its just the best solution that exists right now (if you are afraid of C++), and that is too bad.
We could have simpler, better performing ways if we bothered to do things that aren't web related more often.
Iterating front-end development with Javascript+html+css is simpler and quicker than doing the same with C++ because you don't have to recompile for each iteration. In some cases I don't even need to restart the app.
Also, I have been able to debug in a few nasty cases by getting users to switch out a js/html file and restart the app. That's impossible to do with C++ given the same time/effort constraints.
Those are just two fairly small but measurable examples. There are also drawbacks to having not chosen Qt for the front-end. But those data points and more were part of a rather complicated cost-benefit analysis of what was available to make a cross platform GUI app in a reasonable amount of time.
I don't see what a search for a "true" toolkit has to do with such an analysis. I don't see what caricatures of one camp or another as unduly emotional has to do with such an analysis. What am I missing?
Qt's cross-platform support is amazing.
Now tell me, what do native apps get you over Electron apps? Demonstrably happier customers? Or just the personal satisfaction of knowing your app is a "global optimum" or whatever?
I'd say what you are arguing is "my team is better at JavaScript than Qml/JavaScript/C++", which is fine. It really boils down to what the team is most comfortable writing in.
That aside, Qt definitely wins when compared to Electron.
what makes you say that ? I develop a C++/Qt app and fix bugs and add new features without any problems and without having to care to mac / windows / linux specific stuff.